Tag Archives: The Supreme Court

Peter Rykowski: Wisconsin Ground Zero in Battle Over Constitution 4.5 (2)

by Peter Rykowski

Wisconsin has emerged as a battleground in the debate over whether to apply to Congress to call a convention to propose amendments under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con). Supporters and opponents of a convention clashed at a recent Wisconsin Senate committee hearing, displaying the stark differences between the two sides.

The Con-Con Resolutions

Wisconsin is a top target of Con-Con proponents in the current legislative sessions, with four resolutions having been introduced.

Two of them — Senate Joint Resolution 8 (S.J.R. 8) and Assembly Joint Resolution 9 (A.J.R. 9) — follow the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) Project application, urging Congress to call a convention to propose amendments “that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”

The other two resolutions — Senate Joint Resolution 12 (S.J.R. 12) and Assembly Joint Resolution 16 (A.J.R. 16) — call for a convention to propose a congressional term limits amendment.

The hearing, held on Wednesday, March 24, in the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Legal Review and Consumer Protection, was over S.J.R. 8 and S.J.R. 12.

False Claims and Tall Tales

Following testimonies from sponsors of the resolutions, the committee heard testimony from Meckler, the president of COS. Meckler started off by spouting his tall tale that Article V of the U.S. Constitution was the Founding Fathers’ solution to federal overreach, ignoring the reality that constitutional enforcement was the Founders’ solution to usurpations.

The traveling salesman then discussed each of the three topics advocated for in his COS resolutions — term limits, fiscal restraints, and jurisdiction limitations on the federal government. According to Meckler, legislators could use the resolution text to enact a number of constitutional changes for each of the three individual topics.

While the suggestions Meckler listed — including reversing illegal Supreme Court precedents, limiting the Court to nine justices, and term limits for unelected government bureaucrats — might sound appealing to conservatives, they illustrate one of the many dangers of the COS resolution specifically, and, more broadly, any Article V convention.

The text is so vague that even if a convention did not stray from the resolution text — a prospect no one should count on — the text could be twisted to justify a slew of amendments that increase and entrench the power of the federal government. Tellingly, a September 2016 Article V convention simulation hosted by Convention of States ended up proposing amendments that did just that.

In the most revealing moment of his testimony, Meckler attempted to refute his constitutionalist critics by equating case law with the Constitution. While constitutionalists argue for enforcing the Constitution, Meckler questioned “which constitution they’re referring to.” Holding up a book listing every Supreme Court ruling, Meckler stated that case law has become the real “Constitution of the United States of America.” Thus, rather than nullifying these rulings — much of which are blatantly unconstitutional — Meckler claimed the solution is to change the text of the Constitution itself.

Shortly after Meckler, Ken Quinn, the northern regional director for U.S. Term Limits, testified. Among other statements, he claimed that “there’s no such thing as a runaway convention.” He further stated that an “Article V convention” is not synonymous with a “constitutional convention,” baselessly claiming that the latter would require unanimous consent.

These two allegations by Quinn are easily refuted by looking at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Originally convened to merely amend the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 convention led to the drafting and ratification of the current Constitution. Furthermore, while the former document required unanimous consent for making constitutional changes, the convention threw out that rule and required only nine of the 13 states to ratify the new constitution.

During his testimony, Quinn claimed that he had once supported “an organization” that opposed a Con-Con but changed his mind after researching the matter himself. He made multiple false claims about The John Birch Society, including that it argues the U.S. Constitution was illegally adopted, and that it originally supported an Article V convention.

The John Birch Society Responds

It was not long before Christian Gomez, research project manager for JBS, was called upon to give his testimony. He began by refuting the peddlers’ claims about an Article V convention and JBS. For example, he noted JBS’s 1967 response to a letter inquiring about a Con-Con in which it unequivocally rejected the idea.

Gomez also set the record straight about the lobbyists’ unfounded assertions that an “Article V convention” is different from a “constitutional convention” and urged the committee not to get distracted by mere semantics.

Not only does no a such distinction exist in Article V’s text, but contrary to Meckler’s claim that his proposal would not be a “convention of delegates,” Gomez noted New York’s 1789 application for a “Convention of Deputies” under Article V. More recent application resolutions, including in Louisiana and Connecticut, have used the term “constitutional convention.”

Additionally, Gomez pointed out that even if a distinction existed, it could easily be abandoned in the same way that the 1787 constitutional convention abandoned the Articles of Confederation’s requirement of unanimity for the ratification of constitutional changes.

Further illustrating how the term “convention of states” is merely a lobbyist-created talking point to make a Con-Con more appealing to state legislators, Gomez noted how Meckler himself had called for “single-subject constitutional conventions” in his 2012 book Tea Party Patriots and how he co-hosted the “Conference on the Constitutional Convention” with left-wing law professor Lawrence Lessig.

Having refuted the Con-Con peddlers, Gomez used his testimony to note Article V’s purpose of fixing potential defects in the Constitution, rather than to limit the federal government. He further noted that an Article V convention would be more likely to increase and entrench an expansive federal government through poorly-worded amendments, amendments that blatantly increase the size and power federal government, or a new constitution altogether. The current problems with the federal government, Gomez argued, stem from a disregard of the Constitution rather than problems with the document.

In the limited time he had to testify (more on that later), this writer emphasized Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s warning that “This is not a good century to write a constitution,” and how the Left would take advantage of any Article V convention to advance a far-left agenda in line with international norms.

Furious Felzkowski

Committee hearings are intended for legislators to examine arguments for and against proposed legislation prior to making a decision. However, Senator Mary Felzkowski (R-Irma) showed her cards — and bias — early. This was not surprising, considering her sponsorship of both the COS and term-limits resolutions — ironically, she is currently serving her fifth term in the legislature.

After asking Gomez his solution to federal overreach in lieu of an Article V convention — to which he aptly responded by pointing out officials’ duty under Article VI to nullify unconstitutional laws, and how it is an immediate solution as opposed to the Article V process that often lasts decades — Felzkowski began attacking his position.

The five-term legislator claimed that nullification would be ineffective at reining in federal spending such as the $1.9 trillion spending, to which Gomez noted the importance of educating citizens to vote out fiscally irresponsible members of Congress, and also the ineffectiveness of most balanced-budget amendments. In fact, states can help rein in federal spending — 80 percent of which is unconstitutional — by abolishing the Federal Reserve and by passing a State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act.

Unsatisfied, Felzkowski accused Gomez of basing his arguments on the dangers of a Con-Con on hypotheticals — despite the other side relying far more on untested hypotheticals. She ended her tirade by claiming Gomez was “only including parts of the information” — as if the other side does not do this — and that “it’s very hard to take what you’re saying seriously.” Notwithstanding the irony, it is unfortunate that a legislator used the hearing to be an advocate rather than an observer.

The Uhl Family Steals the Show

The most impressive testimonies during the hearing were delivered by the five-strong Uhl family.

The first in the family to testify were Christy and Alise. Christy, 11, stated the obvious fact that the U.S. Constitution is not the problem, meaning the solution is to punish corrupt politicians rather than change the Constitution. Alise, 12, noted that the Founding Fathers, who adhered to Christian principles, sought freedom and a limited government. Those principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution would be in danger with a constitutional convention under Article V.

Immediately after the girls’ testimonies, Senator Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville), another sponsor of the two resolutions, went on the defensive, repeating the falsehood that an “Article V convention” is somehow distinct from a “constitutional convention.” Such a response was unprompted and unnecessary, indicating the effectiveness of the girls’ testimonies.

The girls’ parents, Curtis and Dominique, also testified. Among other thoughtful points, Curtis noted that when considering the COS resolution, a representative had stated “we have to do something,” a poor attitude when the Constitution and freedom are at risk. Curtis also referred to Meckler’s lofty statement that state legislators “have the power to alter the structure of the federal government.” The former noted that only 2,445 representatives and senators from 38 states can initiate a constitutional convention that would affect over 300 million people — a frightening thought.

Dominique, in addition to pointing out several reasons why a Con-Con is a dangerous idea and referring to alternative constitutions crafted by the Deep State, called out the self-promoting lobbyist Meckler for lying about COS’s popularity. She also went into depth about realistic steps the states can take — and are presently taking — to nullify the federal government.

The nullification bills Dominique mentioned included a Texas bill to comprehensively examine the constitutionality of federal actions and, if necessary, nullify them; a Missouri bill to robustly prevent enforcement of past, present, and future gun controls; a Kentucky bill to prevent unconstitutional federal National Guard deployments; and an Oklahoma bill to nullify unconstitutional presidential executive orders. Dominique showed the committee that a wide variety of superior options exist to an Article V constitutional convention.

Another impressive testimony was given by Elayna, 15. She pointed out a significant reason why an Article V convention is particularly dangerous today: Human nature is depraved, and the character, wisdom, and morals present among the Founding Fathers — and present in early U.S. history — have significantly deteriorated in the nation today.

If a convention under Article V happened today, Elayna stated, political leaders would not trust in God as the Founders had, but they will largely be overcome with greed and seek to advance their personal agendas. As evidence, she noted how Con-Con advocates are already seeking to aggregate unrelated, centuries-old Article V applications with newer ones in an attempt to reach the 34-state threshold.

Furthermore, Elayna asked, if amendments such as congressional term limits or a Balanced Budget Amendment are so popular, why can the regular process not be used? Rather than open up the Constitution in a precarious time using an untested Article V convention, she concluded, any proposed amendments should go through the regular process.

Elayna received a barrage of questions from the committee members, particularly Senators Stroebel and Felzkowski. Their questions included why the Founding Fathers included Article V in the Constitution and what alternatives to an Article V convention should be used. Elayna answered those questions ably, impressing many of those watching.

The committee’s questioning of Elayna, along with Stroebel’s unprompted comments following her sisters’ testimonies, indicated a level of fear in response to their testimonies. They had no other reason to make those comments or question Elayna so intensely. Furthermore, they asked no questions of the girls’ parents.

The Uhl Family’s testimonies — particularly their daughters’ — were effective, powerful, and intelligent. Being a family that homeschools, their testimonies also illustrate the importance and clear advantage of giving one’s children a proper education, divorced from the left-wing indoctrination and dumbing-down present in the public-school system.

Final Observations

Throughout the hearing, a notable distinction between the two sides’ testimonies was their substance. Those in opposition focused solely on the subject of the hearing, namely why an Article V convention would be harmful to Americans’ God-given freedoms and how Article VI offers an immensely superior alternative.

On the other hand, most of the testimonies in favor — with the exception of a select few — were vague and did not address the topic at hand. For example, many of the individuals focused on their life stories or talked about problems in the federal government without discussing how Article V, specifically, would solve those problems.

The committee also was inconsistent in its treatment of the two sides. Immediately before this writer testified, it imposed a five-minute rule for testimonies, preventing me from delivering half of my testimony. However, multiple subsequent individuals in favor of a convention — who largely did not directly address the topic at hand — spoke longer than five minutes without interruption.

Finally, Dr. Wayne Sedlak, a pastor from West Bend, registered to testify in opposition to the resolutions with the help of a legislative assistant. However, the committee never called on him to testify. After Dr. Sedlak confronted the committee about this error, it allowed him to submit written testimony. Nonetheless, excluding him from the oral hearings deprived the committee and those watching of a powerful voice in opposition to a convention and in favor of nullification.

As of this article’s writing, S.J.R. 8 and S.J.R. 12 still await an executive session, in which the committee will decide whether to send the resolutions to the floor. Whichever way it, and the legislature, decides, could have significant ramifications for the entire country and the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Wisconsin residents can contact their legislators in opposition to a Con-Con by visiting The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here. Everyone can take action against Con-Con applications in their respective states by visiting JBS’s action project page here.

NA: https://thenewamerican.com/wisconsin-ground-zero-in-battle-over-constitution/

 

Bill Lockwood: Answering Daniel Webster on Nullification and Secession 5 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Robert Hayne of South Carolina was the first man to put forth conspicuously the doctrine of Nullification, by which is meant the right of a State to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, provided the State in convention should decide that the law was unconstitutional. The year was 1830. Hayne delivered his speech in the U.S. Senate on January 21.

At issue was the Tariff of 1828, popularly known in the South as “The Tariff of Abominations.” South Carolinians hated it, and not without cause. It strongly favored the northern states while causing the southern states to carry the lion’s share of taxes on imported goods. At the same time, the tariff  forced the South to go into debt to New England.  It was largely believed that “North had declared economic war on the South.”

Daniel Webster was Senator from the state of Massachusetts. He was disturbed that Hayne, in his objections to the tariff, had also asserted a states’ right to secede. Northern states looked to Webster to give reply to Hayne, which he did the following day, in what has come to be known as The Second Reply to Robert Hayne of South Carolina.

Webster is championed as providing an unanswerable argument to Nullification. It is widely believed, even today, that Webster “dismantled” the South Carolinian’s argument, “point by point.” Webster’s reply may have been over 150 years ago, but his rebuttal needs to be examined.

Before reviewing Webster, it is to be noted that the Senator from Massachusetts had earlier taken the position that what the Constitution did not specifically forbid, Congress may do. His argumentation was that the Constitution was a “sketch, an outline, not a detailed rendering.” “The true view of the subject is that if it be a fit instrument to an authorized purpose, it may be used, not being specifically prohibited.” Consider now Webster’s disputation against Robert Hayne on the floor of Congress.

Natural Rights or Constitutional Rights?

Webster’s first response was to confess that a people had a natural right to revolution, to be openly disobedient and even to throw-off the yoke of a government, such as had occurred in our founding period. “Webster granted that the people were not bound to obey unconstitutional laws, and that they might disobey them without overturning the government.”

However, Webster distinguished between a natural right and a constitutional right. A natural right he granted, but believed the doctrine of Nullification belonged in the category of a constitutional right, and since the Constitution itself did not grant the right of nullification, South Carolina could not rightly directly interfere with a federal law.

Webster’s objections are shallow and his distinction is arbitrary.

First, Webster had earlier argued that what the Constitution did not specifically forbid, Congress may do. This is now at cross-purposes to his stand against nullification. Hayne had pressed for a “constitutional right of resistance” by the states. But Webster now insists that Nullification is illegal since it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a legal course of action. Gone therefore is his principled stand that unless a Congressional action was specifically forbidden the states or the people may do.

Second, to argue that the “people are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws” assumes that the people have a natural right to interpret the Constitution for themselves outside the “official interpretation” of the Federal Government. This is the true nature of the case, as “the people” agreed to the Constitution, ratifying it in the states, several years prior to the establishment of the Supreme Court, the supposed final arbiter of legitimate Constitutional interpretation.

As stated earlier by President John Adams: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”

Third, most importantly, a states’ right to Nullify, or Disobey a law that it believed was unconstitutional need not be grounded in the text of the Constitution itself. There is a natural right before God to manage our own government. This was the ground of the Declaration of Independence. Nullification is what the Founders practiced regarding England.

It is arbitrary to place a states’ right of self-government in the category “constitutional or not” as opposed to natural rights before God—as if all of our rights must be listed in the plain text of the Constitution. To this the founders would never agree. In fact, they specifically forbade that concept in the 9th Amendment. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Simply, the instrument of the Constitution merely granted certain specified rights owned by the people to the federal government. Webster’s position against Hayne, at least in this case, assumes that the role is reversed, that the people have whatsoever the government decides.

The Constitution a Revocable Contract?

Related to the above is the basic issue is whether or not the Constitution is a contract to which both parties, states and the federal government, agree. And at the heart of this is the issue of just who is the interpreter of the Constitution?

When, during the War of 1812, New England was convinced that the federal government was not serving their interest, Webster and others characterized “the Constitution as a revocable compact” and “furnished the philosophical basis for a New England declaration of independence.”

Now, however, in 1830, when New England profited heavily from the Tariff of 1828, to the South’s detriment, Webster reversed himself. When Robert Hayne argued that the “true defenders” of the Union were “those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, who would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegated …”, Webster disagreed. If Webster is correct here, the field is wide open. America is exactly where it is today by the logic of Webster’s reasoning.

Who Decides?

“The great question is,” per Webster, “whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws?” This is the crux of the entire discussion. Webster answers that it lay with the federal government alone, in particular the federal judiciary. In response, consider:

First, Webster is in the field of philosophy, since the Constitution itself, by its language alone, does not specifically address the “interpreting” the Constitution, at least as mandating law for the entire country. It is noteworthy also that neither Jefferson nor Madison agreed with Webster at this point. The ‘Principles of ‘98’, which they authored, pointedly took issue with his assertion. And it is more than highly doubtful that any of the Founding generation would agree that the federal judiciary alone could decide laws for the entire nation.

Second, the federal constitution was founded as a contract, a compact between the States and the federal government. To ignore this is to ignore the entire fabric of the Constitution. When the Pilgrims escaped to American shores they were escaping a top-down control of the Roman Church in the Old World. Though ignored by modern America, this is the taproot of our Constitution.

Our Founders believed that their associations in religion were voluntary, which lay at the base of their political associations. This type of preaching gave rise to the words of the Mayflower Compact. “We solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic …” The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639 reads exactly the same. These were antecedents to our Federal Constitution.

These concepts gave rise to the fundamental law of our nation, The Declaration of Independence, which asserts that “the consent of the governed” is for rule to be legitimate. This principle Webster, as well as myriads of moderns, freely cast aside by the assertion that the federal government alone may decide what is constitutional. Not much consenting in that.

As noted above, Webster himself agreed with the principle of Nullification in matters of “palpable” departures and that it is true that “the people are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws.” But if this be the case then the ability to “interpret” the Constitution does not lie within the province of the federal judiciary alone. Webster did not see his inconsistency.

Third, most ominously, if Webster is correct, then once again the field is boundless for Congress to make whatever laws it desires. As long as an activist Supreme Court agrees, these legislations become law and there is absolutely no recourse, per Webster’s argument, for the citizens that must chafe beneath the burden of these laws.

No matter how wicked or onerous, whether it enact socialism or communism, infanticide by law or homosexual unions, a one-child policy as in China, the socialist redistribution of wealth, an open border or nationalized health care carried on the backs of the middle-class—citizens are legally bound to bear that yoke.

This is where the logic of Webster leads.

Confederation?

Webster finished by asserting that if a State has the right to nullify federal laws, then the entire Union is a “rope of sand” and we are “thrown back again … upon the old Confederation.” The people had, Webster reminded, “rejected the Confederation by ratifying the Constitution, whose central point was to prevent the states from vetoing measures enacted for the common national good.”

He added that people ought to repudiate Hayne’s principle of “Liberty first and Union afterwards.”

Let us here agree with Webster on confederation. If states have the right to nullify laws, perhaps we are indeed “thrown back” onto the ‘old confederation’ which the people “rejected by ratifying the Constitution.”

Must Webster’s principle of Union first, and Liberty afterward always be maintained? Does this ring true to the Founders’ vision? As Webster announced it, it must. But if so, we “are thrown back” onto eventual subservience and despotism. How far must we uphold “Union” to the detriment of our “Liberty?”

James Madison asserted, almost as if he was prophesying of modern America, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, …may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

We have certainly crossed to the other side of the road in America where tyranny has become commonplace. Webster would certainly have agreed, at this point, that his principle of Union first, and Liberty afterward, is no longer valid. But if not valid now, neither was it then. We should not be left to the Webster’s of the world to tell us just when we should cherish our liberties more than the Union.

Alex Newman: Fresh Lawsuits Give Proof of Massive Vote-machine Fraud 4 (1)

by Alex Newman

Voting machines and software used across dozens of key jurisdictions in the 2020 election were literally designed to rig elections, according to evidence presented in federal lawsuits by powerhouse attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. Using these compromised systems secured a phony victory for Joe Biden in ways that would have been “impossible” without the widespread fraud, the suits show. Legal experts said the cases exposing the coordinated vote fraud could ensure another four years for Trump in the White House.

In her suit filed in Georgia this week, Powell explained that the ultimate objective of the vote riggers was to “illegally and fraudulently” manipulate the vote count so that Biden could appear to to be the winner. And this fraud was accomplished through various means, including lies, computer rigging, “old-fashioned ballot-stuffing,” and more that were all covered up using computer software programs created and run by foreign and domestic enemies.

Among the many pieces of evidence: a damning affidavit by a whistleblower who helped the late mass-murdering Socialist dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela create voting systems that could be rigged to favor a chosen candidate. Indeed, according to the suit, the software by Smartmatic was literally created for the purpose of rigging elections in a manner that would be impossible to prove or detect. And Smartmatic is closely linked to Dominion and other firms that were key in the 2020 election.

“Chavez was most insistent that Smartmatic design the system in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected,” the whistleblower explained under penalty of perjury. “He wanted the software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumb print or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote.”

The brutal Venezuelan dictator, the affidavit continues, “made it clear that the system would have to be setup to not leave any evidence of the changed vote for a specific voter and that there would be no evidence to show and nothing to contradict that the name or the fingerprint or thumb print was going with a changed vote.” The company in question, Smartmatic, which operates through an international network of companies spread across multiple nations, “agreed to create such a system and produced the software and hardware that accomplished that result for President Chavez.”

As the lawsuit points out, Dominion’s software was literally designed to prevent simple audits that would reveal the “misallocation, redistribution, or deletion of votes.” And under the law, that makes it all invalid. “There is incontrovertible physical evidence that the standards of physical security of the voting machines and the software were breached, and machines were connected to the internet in violation of professional standards and state and federal laws,” the suit continues.

Under the law and previous court rulings, Powell’s lawsuit only needs to show that a “preponderance of evidence” reveals that “there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.” There appears to be far more than that, despite the establishment media refusing to even mention it.

Another affidavit filed on November 25 in the case by a military intelligence analyst also revealed how vote tabulation software with operations in Serbia and other nations was critical in rigging the numbers sent to Decision HQ. The systems were accessible — and were accessed — from Communist China and other nations, the affidavit explains. Dominion, Edison Research, Scytl, and Smartmatic were all implicated, according to the sworn document.

“In my professional opinion, this affidavit presents unambiguous evidence that Dominion Voter Systems and Edison Research have been accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China,” the military-intelligence official said. “By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, these organizations neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020.”

“This represents a complete failure of their duty to provide basic cyber-security,” added the U.S. government official, whose name was redacted for security purposes. “This is not a technological issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue: if it is not corrected, future elections in the United States and beyond will not be secure and citizens will not have confidence in the results.”

The document also mentions former Dominion Vice President of Security Eric Coomer, a fringe anti-Trump extremist with a vicious and very public hatred for the president. According to journalist Joe Oltmann who infiltrated Antifa meetings online, Coomer even promised his fellow Antifa revolutionaries that he had ensured Trump would not be able to win the 2020 election.

Yet another sworn affidavit filed in federal court in a separate but related case by a cybersecurity expert explains how the compromised voting machines were able to rig the election in Michigan. The document, signed under penalty of perjury by Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Operations Group, outlines the findings of an 18-month investigation into Dominion and other Elections Management Systems.

“These systems contain a large number of vulnerabilities to hacking and tampering, both at the front end where Americans cast their votes, and also on the back end where votes are stored, tabulated, and reported,” the affidavit explains, specifically calling out major deficiencies and problems with Dominion. These are some of the reasons states such as Texas refused to use such technologies, according to the document filed in the case Wood v. Raffensperger involving superstar attorney Lin Wood.

Official data and analysis of Michigan’s election “pinpoints a statistical anomaly so far outside of every statistical norm as to be virtually impossible,” the sworn statement explains. “There are a stunning 3,276 precincts where the Presidential Votes Cast compared to the Estimated Voters based on Reported Statistics ranges from 84% to 350%.”

Breaking down the numbers, the document explains that this pattern “strongly suggests the additive algorithm … was activated in the code.” Indeed, the User Guide for the EMS system specifically outlines the function that allows a method of tabulating votes to elect a winner.

“The final red flag is perhaps the greatest,” the affidavit continues. “Something occurred in Michigan that is physically impossible, indicating the results were manipulated on election night within EMS [Election Management System].” That red flag, the affidavit explains, are four spikes totaling almost 400,000 ballots that were allegedly processed in less than 3 hours. “This is physically impossible given the equipment available at the 4 reference locations,” the document points out.

The affidavit, which has been entered into evidence, offers further proof of establishment media dishonesty in falsely claiming that there is no evidence of fraud–later turned to “no evidence of widespread fraud.”

At least some Republican members of Congress are not playing along with the establishment effort to ignore the evidence and pretend like it does not exist. “We know what is documented here is impossible as the Maricopa County Supervisors told us everything is fine and go back to sleep and pay your taxes and wear a mask,” said Congressman Paul Gosar (R-Arz.) in a sarcastic social-media comment shared by President Trump about the affidavit filed in Wood’s suit. “And leftist reporters told us to move on.”

As recently as last year, top Democrats expressed serious concerns about election integrity using voting-machines, specifically calling out Dominion. Just weeks before the 2020 election, a federal judge in Georgia also sounded the alarm about Dominion’s systems and their vulnerability to fraud.

Wood, the attorney leading this particular case, vowed that the truth about election fraud would be exposed, and the perpetrators jailed. Powell has similarly explained that exposing the fraud and prosecuting the perpetrators is essential to the survival of America’s constitutional Republic, and therefore, it will be done.

Courts in Nevada, Pennsylvania, and other states have already issued rulings in the case favorable to the Trump campaign. In Pennsylvania, a judge even ordered a halt to any further certification of results pending a hearing. Some cases have been rejected, but they are being appealed. Eventually, the Trump campaign and other lawyers litigating the fraud in courts expect to land at the U.S. Supreme Court. And as Trump’s attorneys have explained, the president still has multiple paths to another victory.

Related articles:

Pennsylvania Judge Halts Election Certification as Sidney Powell Delivers Lawsuits

Trump Team Lays Out Path to Victory, Demolishing Media Lies

Massive Vote Fraud Across U.S. as Trump Decries Attempted Coup

Stopping the Steal at the Electoral College

ELECTION STEAL – General exposes the REAL vote fraud the media are hiding: CIA computer program flips votes

Sydney Powell: Trump got “at Least 80 Million Votes”

Georgia Monitor Finds 9,626 Vote Error That Favored Biden

NA: https://thenewamerican.com/fresh-lawsuits-give-proof-of-massive-vote-machine-fraud/


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Bill Lockwood: Judicial Supremacy? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Thomas Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court itself had the potential to distort the original intent of the Founders by using “Judicial Review.” He saw that the Court might begin creating law instead of merely interpreting the laws passed by the legislature and applying them in the cases that came before it. Late in life he wrote:

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

While there are certainly other factors involved in America’s decline from its original constitutional model, Jefferson’s admonition strikes at the heart of the issues involved today.

With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and President Trump’s constitutional role in filling that vacancy, the war that is shaping up in Washington, D.C. is ominous. Showing complete disdain for our Constitution, the frenzied left is promising such outlandish measures as bringing impeachment charges against our president solely for the purpose of hindering him from doing his Constitutional duty.

Let’s look, however, behind the mayhem to see the foundational issues involved.

Constitutional Nonsense

One rude and reckless blogger posted this on Facebook. “With justice Ginsberg passing today, all my female and minority friends better vote like your life depends upon it … these … Republicans are going to have you barefoot and in the kitchen with zero rights over your genitals and put minorities ‘back in their place’ in society …!!”

It is difficult to imagine a more frantic and ignorant statement than this. But it does highlight some major erroneous thought processes that live on the socialist left. Before noting them it is worth mentioning that the comment above focuses upon the issue of abortion. That is noteworthy because it is the lefties and socialists in America who like to say, “You conservatives are a ONE ISSUE group of people—always mentioning abortion!” In point of fact, that is inaccurate—however, surrounding the war pertaining to Ginsberg’s replacement, just who is riveting attention to one single issue? The Liberal Left.

Judicial Supremacy

Judicial Supremacy is a “radical over-extension”, indeed, perversion – “of the legitimate doctrines of ‘judicial review and stare decisis (‘to stand by matters that have been settled’). In brief, the modern doctrine of “judicial supremacy” is as follows: (1) That the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in issues that come before the Court and that that meaning of the Constitution, instead of applying only against the parties that come before the Court, applies against everyone in the country situated in similar circumstances.

(2) That an opinion of the Supreme Court can only be modified or cancelled by a later opinion of the Supreme Court or by a formal amendment to the Constitution.

(3) Nothing can be done to any justice of the Court as a consequence of any opinion handed down, no matter how fraudulent or willfully false it may be.

(4) Most importantly: Judicial Supremacy assumes that the meaning of the Constitution’s provisions are: (i) largely unknown and even unknowable, unless that provision becomes illuminated by the Supreme Court itself; (ii) politically plastic, in that the meaning of those provisions can, and even should, change from time to time as the Supreme Court deems advisable.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

Like liberal views of the Bible, so these views of the Constitution and of the role of the Supreme Court land us in nothing less than an oligarchy whereby we are ruled by a board of nine judges—not the Constitution itself. And in case of a 5-4 decision by the Court, the fate of the nation can be decided by only one single judge. Little wonder therefore, that the Political War of 2020 is heightening.

First, the Constitution had a Definite Meaning Before the Supreme Court was Formed. The Constitution and all of its provisions were well known by the people much before the Supreme Court was formed. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791. However, the Supreme Court was not formed until 1789 and the first cases reached it in August of 1791. In other words, the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution was ratified. Are we to believe that it was passed and ratified by “We the People” but that they had no idea as to its meaning until nine black-robed justices began handing down decisions?

Further, public officeholders have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution” and the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”—no person could honestly have taken this oath before the formation and decisions of the Supreme Court if “Judicial Supremacy” be true.

Second, Judicial Supremacy is Self-Contradictory. Article 3 of the Constitution covers the Judicial Branch. “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2 describes the cases that come before the Supreme Court. Those who favor the modern doctrine of “Judicial Supremacy” point to this Section to establish it. But that presupposes that we are able to comprehend the meaning of its provisions without Supreme Court clarification.

This is the same fundamental contradiction made by the Roman Church when seeking to establish papal supremacy. Catholic defenders run to Matthew 16:16-18 in an effort to establish the doctrine in the minds of doubters. However, this maneuver assumes that one may read and understand the text without papal assistance. In point of fact, the text actually teaches no such thing as papal supremacy any more than Article 3 gives foundation for Judicial Supremacy.

Third, the Constitution is Self-Defining. One is able to read and understand the meaning of the text without assistance from an “inspired” Court of Nine. If there are challenges to interpretation, one need only read The Federalist Papers, the commentary composed by those who actually wrote the Constitution, to determine its meaning. As a matter of fact, it was upon this basis, by the notes put together in articles by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, that the colonies learned and accepted the Constitution to begin with.

There is a frenzy of activity surrounding the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but the real reason the Democrat/Socialists of America are waging war is found in the following statement from the Tenth Amendment Center. “Progressives want a living, breathing Constitution because they want to mold society into their own image. They crave power. Originalism restrains power.” Without rule of law, government becomes arbitrary and despotic. Exactly where the Socialists will take us.

 

 

 

Bill Lockwood: America a Christian Nation 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

When our Founding Fathers referred to this nation, as “Christian Nation,” as did John Jay, one of authors of Federalist Papers, they did not intend that this be understood in the sense that an official church had been established, or that a “Theocracy” was in place, but rather that the principles upon which our republic rests were Christian in origin. Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, in surveying the mass of material on this topic, summarized:

“Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions. It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.”

Some of founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic.” That generation demonstrated this by the fact that they Morris adorned public buildings with biblical symbols such as Moses crossing Red Sea; or Moses holding tablets of stone carved on the building of the Supreme Court; or the even state papers of the Continental Congress that are filled with Christianity.

One of the formative laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence, which reads more like a theological statement to the secularists of today. Our republic posited that rights come from God and that the single role of government is to protect what God gave us, inclusive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Republic itself is an outgrowth of Christian principles.

Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, one of the most influential of the founders, having signed not only the Declaration of Independence, but the Articles of Confederation as well as the
Constitution. He wrote to Samuel Baldwin in 1790 that “his faith in the new republic was largely because he felt it was founded on Christianity as he understood it.”

Joseph Story, a jurist who served on the Supreme Court during the founding era and wrote the first lengthy Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, commented as follows:

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

The Supreme Court in numerous cases has referred to this as “A Christian Nation.” Most notable is the 1892 case entitled The Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States. Here the Court packed its decision with a litany of precedents from American history to establish “this is a religious people, … this is a Christian Nation.”

Now it is Different

When speaking of the Bible, one denominational church manual reads, “Now it is different.” Sadly, so it is in the teaching of the founding of America, the Constitution itself, and American civics in general.

Modern Americans have become so ill-educated and misinformed on the subject at hand that even universities and professorships, endowed with tax dollars, argue vehemently against America being conceived as a “Christian nation.” They trumpet loudly that this is a “secular state” and has been from the beginning.

In 2009, for example, the church of Christ where I preach hosted a “Christianity and the Constitution” public seminar, featuring various speakers, establishing that America was designed as a “Christian nation.” Objections by letters to the editor appeared in the local paper, The Times Record News of Wichita Falls. One woman wrote:

…the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution were clearly written as secular documents, with not a single mention of Jesus or the word Christian … [I]t is a fact that the major players in the production of the federal documents were steeped in the Enlightenment: deists, humanists, Masons, and skeptics … [emp. added]

She went on to say that we had “presented discredited information” and “tortured” history to establish the claim that America was a Christian nation.

In answer to that letter, I included the following:

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (cited in the US Supreme Court case [of 1892, mentioned above] said that “Christianity is and always has been a part of the common law.” … The Supreme Court of 1844 (Vidal) said, “It is unnecessary for us, … to consider the establishment of a school for college for the propagation of Judaism or Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.”

It was also noted in response that Noah Webster, who helped ratify our Constitution, wrote that the source of our republican principles “is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or Christian religion.”

Concluding, I added that regarding to “deists” by whom our nation was supposedly founded, that at the time of the Constitutional Convention deists were not even allowed to hold public office! An actual listing of the religious preferences of the delegates to the Constitutional convention of 1787 shows that 55 declared themselves Christians while only 3 called themselves deists. That is about 5%.

Nathan Jun of MSU

After the above exchange in the paper, Dr. Nathan Jun of Midwestern State University came in to help out the secular cause. He wrote:

In response to Bill Lockwood’s April 21 letter: The First Amendment of the Constitution states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ Both conventional approaches to interpreting the ‘establishment clause’ – the first as well as the more conservative accommodationist approach—strictly preclude any implicit or explicit religious preferences on the part of the Constitution or Congress.

The United States of America is most certainly not a ‘Christian’ nation, and this is a basic and uncontroversial principle of constitutional law. Whether or not a preponderance of the founders of this country were Christians, moreover, is wholly irrelevant. The government they founded is and has been secular in principle, if not always in spirit. The antiquated, anti-Semitic Supreme Court decision that Mr. Lockwood cited (instead of, say, the Constitution) says nothing about the fundamental character of our system of government. It does, however, say an awful lot about Mr. Lockwood and, perhaps, about his particular brand of Christianity—at least to this non-Christian.

The errors in Dr. Jun’s statement are so numerous that it is only possible to note the highlights, which I did in a following letter to the editor.

Dr. Jun: sir, your philosophy is woefully misinformed. The 1st Amendment, according to James Madison, merely forbids the federal government from establishing a ‘national church.’ No one then, nor do I, wish to have an official state church. However, that is far different from speaking of our Christian nation in the sense of recognizing Christian principles being imbedded within its framework and forming the underpinning of our society. As Patrick Henry put it, this nation ‘was founded upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.’ Joseph Story, appointed by Madison to the Supreme Court, said, ‘we do not attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity … an attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation …’

I suppose that these men are too antiquated to know what they are talking about land need modernists from Universities to straighten them out. Not a Christian nation? ‘Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege … of our Christian nation to select Christians as their rulers’ (John Jay, 1st chief justice of the Supreme Court).

Next, I only mentioned that the Founders were Christians in answer to another letter which opined that this country was founded by a bunch of deists and secular humanists—not as proof of a Christian nation. You missed that point as well.

Third, to cavalierly dismiss as ‘anti-Semitic’ the 1892 Supreme Court decision which identified us as a Christian nation bespeaks of dep-seated prejudice by Dr. Jun and a fundamental lack of understanding about the roots of America. It is extremely sad that our tax dollars support this type of radical expression.

In truth, the fact that this was established as a Christian nation infuriates the secularists in our country. Perhaps they ought to be thankful that the only “accommodation” that America made was to the irreligious, allowing them to live freely in a Christian nation without forcing them to support a state-sponsored church.

I am certain that if these professors, of which Dr. Nathan Jun is only one, who personally publishes an “Abolish the Police” signature on his Facebook page, were to live in a Muslim country, they might have a different perspective.

After the above public exchange, I contacted Dr. Jun by email in an effort to engage in a public discussion on Christianity in general. But his contempt for Christianity apparently knows no bounds as he tartly replied, “do not ever contact me again.”

So much for a free society where ideas can be exchanged openly in gentlemanly fashion.

John Kachelman, Jr.: Civilization’s Tragic Redundancy 4.5 (2)

by John Kachelman, Jr.

Even the briefest survey of man’s civilization highlights a redundancy of the “rise and fall” of world Empires. History validates that many World Powers rested securely because they possessed the most modern weaponry, astute military strategists, astonishing engineering feats, renowned politicians and a worldwide economy. But the unimagined occurred…the World Power lost its power.

There is one historical constant—a nation ascends to the apex of the world’s power. Its economy is the desire of all, its strength is envied and it presents the promise that if any can live within its borders then all problems will vanish. However, this constant has an ominous corollary—with every “rise” comes a “fall.” National greatness is fragile. Many great Empires have been erased and shuffled to obscurity (i.e. the Hittite Empire). National greatness celebrated by one generation can be surrendered by the next generation.

The history of civilization validates the troubling fact that nations focused on self are destined for the dust bins of history. The very instant that the national attention is turned toward personal gratification and moral standards are ignored, a decay of that nation begins. Consequently, all of their great accomplishments (politically, economically, militarily and religiously) become a tragic footnote in the evolving chronicle of earth’s history.

There is only ONE absolute means for total security of a nation. That security is a national adherence to and willing consent with the Almighty God’s directions. “Blessed (happy, fortunate, to be envied) is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His heritage” (Psalm 33:12).

The tragic redundancy of civilization’s rise and fall is being repeated in our “modern” era. The record of the sociological movement of the world (and particularly our nation) traces a number of events that have decimated the God-ordained family unit, erased the morality and ethos of civil behavior, and repudiated the necessary trust for divine strength and protection. An observable move away from a focus on the Lord God Almighty of the Bible and toward mortal knowledge has been recorded. Personally, I think the movement possibly began with the repudiation of God and the supernatural at the turn on the 18th Century. This rejection of God became evident with World War 1. The aftermath of the Great War brought sociological shifts of unimagined damage to those seeking “freedom” from God.

The current Presidential election is a cultural war that will decide the fate of the United States of America. After November 3, 2020, Americans will see either the total “transformation” of our nation or the opportunity of the citizenry to reclaim the “greatness” that characterizes the “exceptionalism” of America. I believe this is a valid point that many ignore.

Today’s cultural war has been highlighted with specificity in the comments of the presumed Democratic Presidential candidate—Joe Biden. Biden, and the Democratic Party, proposes a number of disastrous promises. The final form of the Democratic platform of the campaign is yet to be released but we are given strong hints as to their real objectives. This article highlights perhaps the most destructive objective of the Democratic Party.

I recall in public high school homeroom every day we would stand and face the flag of the United States of America place our hands over our hearts and recite the pledge of ALLEGIANCE to this nation. Then we would be seated as a classmate would select his/her favorite biblical text, go to the front of the class and read that text from a Bible that was always openly displayed on the teacher’s desk. The daily Bible readings were simply scheduled—we would go down the desk rows and each day the reading would be given and the next sitting in the row would be expected to come to homeroom with his/her Bible reading ready. After the Bible reading the homeroom teacher would lead the entire class in the Lord’s Prayer. In this fashion, the public educational system reminded pupils of our heritage of faith and their required fidelity to uphold elementary civics.

But, in 1962 the United States Supreme Court held, in Engel v. Vitale, that it was unconstitutional for students to be required to recite official prayers in the public schools. That ruling slowly disseminated until today it is impossible to mention basic Judeo-Christian beliefs or profess allegiance to our nation’s Constitution.

This heinous development is now highlighted by the Democratic Party’s presumed Presidential candidate.
Monday 20 July 2020 Joe Biden spoke to the Million Muslim Votes Summit. On a video call with Sharia law advocate and radical Islamic activist Linda Sarsour, Biden said, “If I have the honor of being president, I will end the Muslim ban on day one, day one.”

Adding to this flagrant repudiation of America’s basic foundations, Biden said that American children should be taught more about Islam in schools. “One of the things I think is important, I wish we taught more in our schools about the Islamic faith.”

Biden continued praising Islam: “Hadith from the Prophet Muhammad instructs, ‘Whomever among you sees a wrong, let him change it with his hand. If he is not able, then with his tongue. If he is not able, then with his heart.'” Muhammad, the founder of Islam owned slaves, partook in the slave trade, viewed women as a possession on the same level as a camel, commanded terror and ruthlessness toward any one not a Muslim. And these evils are now simply redefined as actions of the Islamic “heart.”

Joe Biden’s stated position is clear: “I wish we taught more in our schools about the Islamic faith.”
The United States of America was founded upon the principles enunciated by the Lord God Almighty—Jehovah of the Bible. NOT by the angry Allah of Islam who delights in blood, gore and oppression.

How benevolent is this Islamic religion which Joe Biden wishes to upon our public schools? It is a religion marked by terror, hatred, bloodshed, bigotry, cruelty, arrogance, and all other evil attitudes and actions of Satan. It has stood against every humane principle upon which our great nation was founded.

Recently the Daily Caller News Foundation published an article with this title: “Islamic school tortures and chains kids between 2 and 10 years old, Children finally free form horrific nightmare” (July 22, 2020). It reported an incident in Nigeria. I have experience in Nigeria and specifically with the Boko Harem. Dealing with Islam always involves conflict just as reported in this article. Fifteen children were freed after being held and tortured at an informal Koran school in Nigeria. The children were found with scars and wounds, indicating they were tortured. Three chains used to tie the children’s legs were recovered. The children’s ages ranged between two and ten. Unregulated Islamic schools are common in Nigeria and often exposed for gross mistreatment of students.

Now, do YOU understand that this is the reality which Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party, seek to bring to the public schools of the USA? This is the coming reality of the Muslim objective in Michigan when the police are defunded and no law exists, THEN Sharia Law will be installed!

Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are delighted that public prayers to Jehovah God and the readings of the Bible are banned. They are delighted in contemplating the introduction, teaching and enforcement of Islamic Sharia Law! They blasphemously reject Jehovah God of the Bible and eagerly embrace Allah of the Koran!

God’s judgment will come upon our nation just as it has historically fallen upon any nation that rejects Him. The most modern weaponry, astute military strategists, astonishing engineering feats, renowned politicians and a worldwide economy cannot forestall this judgment! God’s prophet spoke to such a nation saying, “You are of no account, and your work amounts to nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination…Behold, all of them are false; their works are worthless. They are wind and emptiness” (The Bible, Isaiah 41:24, 29).

Note: John Kachelman, Jr. is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.

Matt O’Brien: Mass Incarceration Remains a Myth, Mass Migration Is Still a Problem 0 (0)

by Matt O’Brien

The Intercept has published an article titled, “Immigration Detention Is Part of Mass Incarceration: The Case for Abolishing Ice and Everything Else.” It is, in essence a promotion piece for two unabashedly anti-Trump screeds: Migrating to Prison: America’s Obsession With Locking Up Immigrants, written by law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández and All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It, by Daniel Denvir.

Both authors argue that the Trump administration’s attempts to strengthen immigration enforcement are not intended to preserve American sovereignty and national security. Rather, they claim, Team Trump is exploiting systemic racism, fear of migrants and a “mass incarceration problem” that undermines civil rights in the United States. Moreover, both García Hernández and Denvir assert – against the weight of historical evidence – that only recently has the U.S. government begun to take immigration violations seriously.

But, even for The Intercept, which is unabashedly anti-Trump and pro-open-borders, touting such over-the-top hyperbole is a bit much. Neither García Hernández’ nor Denvir’s claims have any validity whatsoever.

To begin with, the United States in its relatively brief history has received more immigrants than all the other nations of the world combined. Clearly, we don’t have any fear of migrants. Not to mention that, since immigrants aren’t a race – they come from every corner of the globe – it’s patently ridiculous to claim that being broadly in favor of border enforcement renders someone a “racist.”

When it comes to the detention of lawbreakers, the U.S. isn’t even close to having a “mass incarceration problem.” As Rafael A. Mangual of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out, the U.S. does have a fair and impartial justice system. And that system regularly incarcerates violent felons and other serious criminals who pose a danger to the American public. What’s more, unlike many other countries in the world, the U.S. transparently reports the number of people it jails each year. Meanwhile, the notion that the U.S. regularly incarcerates people who simply don’t deserve to be in jail just isn’t supported by any objective data.

As far as the severity with which immigration offenses have been viewed throughout American history, both García Hernández and Denvir are way off base. In 1798, Congress passed the Alien Friends Act, which empowered the president to imprison or deport aliens believed to be “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”

In 1799, in Frie’s Case, Supreme Justice James Iredell applied the Alien Friends Act and related legislation. He noted that no one had ever argued, “that aliens had a right to go into a foreign country, and stay at their will and pleasure without any leave from the government.” Justice Iredell’s statement is proof positive that even the earliest government officials believed that foreign nationals may enter and remain in the U.S. only with the permission of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, it’s a clear acknowledgement that the federal government has always had the authority to take enforcement actions against foreigners who enter the U.S. without permission or who exceed the bounds of permissions granted.

So, what’s up with The Intercept and the authors it cites? They believe that the actions of individuals are not a product of conscious choice. Instead, they see crime and illegal migration as things that people are forced into. And they consider anything other than total forgiveness for any type of criminal behavior to be immoral. It’s what Kurt Schlichter of Townhall.com calls “decriminalizing crime.” However, eliminating all restrictions on bad behavior only leads to chaos and the breakdown of the social order needed for the United States to remain successful.

American voters know that we don’t have a mass incarceration problem, we have an unchecked mass migration problem. That’s why they elected Donald Trump as president. He was the first candidate in five decades who seemed to understand their frustrations with immigration policies that put the desires of foreign nationals above American’s basic need for safety, security and economic stability.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/01/06/incarceration-illegal-immigration-criminals-immigrationreform-com/


Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

Jesse Lee Peterson: BLACK LIBERAL PROMOTES – SEGREGATION! 0 (0)

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson marvels at hypocrisy of progressive ‘people of color’

by Jesse Lee Peterson

In her controversial article entitled “It’s Time for Black Athletes to Leave White Colleges,” former ESPN host Jemele Hill – now a staff writer for the Atlantic – calls for elite black college athletes to leave predominantly white schools.

Hill says black athletes help attract money and attention to “predominately white universities that showcase them,” while Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) continue to struggle. She writes that mostly white schools’ multibillion-dollar revenues have been built on the “exertions of (uncompensated) black athletes.” She also says that black students “feel safer, both physically and emotionally,” at an HBCU.

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court declared with Brown v. Board of Education that segregated schools were unconstitutional. Sixty-five years later, Jemele Hill wants black athletes to stay out of predominantly white universities and colleges – the late segregationist George Wallace would be proud! Hill is feeding poisonous lies to young blacks. Her divisive message of hate, blame and victimhood is not about helping blacks; it’s about gaining fame and getting back at whites for “racism” and slavery.

Jemele Hill is a hypocrite. She attended Michigan State University – a predominantly white institution. She used her degree to get a job at ESPN (a liberal white company). She was later fired by ESPN in 2018 after she continuously lied and tweeted accusing President Trump of being a “white supremacist” and a “bigot” who was “unqualified and unfit to be president.” ESPN initially declined to punish her for the tweet, but then sidelined her for two weeks in October 2017, after she violated the company’s social media guidelines again. Another violation occurred when she called on fans to boycott advertisers of the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys after owner Jerry Jones told players they would be benched if they did not stand up during the national anthem.

Hill’s call for black athletes to forgo attending predominantly white universities is dumb. Student athletes want to attend schools that offer the best opportunity to excel in the classroom and on the field or court. They’re looking for colleges that have great coaching and high visibility, and HBCUs cannot offer student athletes the same opportunities.

For decades, liberal blacks have been complaining about the lack of “diversity” and “inclusion,” and whites have given in to all of their crazy demands. Blacks and whites participated in the civil-rights movement and fought for integration. Now Hill wants blacks to separate from whites. And many black liberals in academia and in the Democratic Party agree with her.

More than 75 universities now host blacks-only graduation ceremonies. A few notable universities they’re held at include UC San Diego, UC Irvine, Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Yale and Arizona State University. Many others also offer similar ceremonies for Latino or LGBTQ student populations. Harvard this year also debuted a “UndocuGraduation” for students in the country illegally.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

I’ve always been opposed to forced integration. I believe that once laws were changed to allow blacks equal protection and the freedom to move around freely, blacks and whites would have naturally come together based on character and common values.

The real reason HBCUs are declining is because the alumni don’t give back. Alumni giving at HBCUs are the lowest in the country around 12 percent. HBCUs rely more heavily on federal, state, and local resources than other institutions.

As much as Jemele Hill hates President Trump, he has done more to help HBCUs than Barack Obama. Less than a month into his presidency Donald Trump met with education leaders and signed an executive order reaffirming support to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. According to the Department of Education records, in 2018 Trump appropriated more than $360 million – $32 million more than Obama – but there is no mention of this in Hill’s article.

I grew up in Alabama near Tuskegee, home of Tuskegee Institute founded by the late great Booker T. Washington. Tuskegee used to be a top-notch institution where blacks went to get a real education that prepared them for the real world. Truckloads of black Americans graduated from Tuskegee and went on to become successful. Many HBCU graduates, including members of my family and friends, went on to become doctors, teachers, nurses and skilled tradesman. And because they had good parents, morals and sound work ethic, they went back to where they came from and enhanced their communities.

Today, most HBCUs are a joke. They offer lousy programs, and most of the students are not serious. The schools promote useless degrees focused on “Social Justice,” “Critical Race Theory” and “Pan-African Studies.” HBCUs should be made into trade schools or disband.

Should student athletes be compensated? Student athletes get scholarships to cover tuition, but if the Fair Pay To Play Act passes, California student athletes may be able to make money from the use of their names, images and likenesses. I don’t have a problem with student athletes being paid, but this should be something that is worked out with the NCAA and athletes. Jemele Hill’s call for segregation is not about helping black students; it’s about hating whitey and promoting her career.

Until black people stop hating and blaming whites, they will always feel inferior, and they will continue to be misled by race hustlers.


WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/black-liberal-promotes-segregation/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

With the recent shootings in America liberal politicians have proposed curtailing the God-given unalienable right to keep and bear arms as a method to stem the violence. From presidential hopeful Joe Biden recently telling Anderson Cooper, “Bingo” when asked about the government coming for “guns” to Kamala Harris’ proposal that if she is elected president she will enact “executive orders” to confiscate “assault weapons” when Congress fails to act, the Second Amendment needs to be re-asserted.

It is a historical fact that in nations where political leaders wish to remove properties and freedoms of the citizenry, they always begin by disarming the populace. This normally begins by requiring registration of firearms and imposing penalties when they do not. This is followed in many cases by federal governments deliberately provoking rioting and violence which is then used as an excuse to confiscate firearms.

The Second Amendment—A Prohibition

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The first thing to be noted is that the 2d Amendment is a strict prohibition against the federal government. It is not a declaration of rights, period. The right to keep arms was assumed to be God-given by the founders, but they added the Amendments to ensure that the national government would not touch these freedoms.

The Bill of Rights opens with this bold statement, “Congress shall make NO LAW …” What Joe Biden and his Democrat cohorts propose is unconstitutional on its very surface. Federal government has no say so in the matter. Making “no law” is pretty clear.

Second, there is a popular view today, though erroneous, that the 2d Amendment means that the National Guard should be able to keep and bear arms, but that the guarantee does not extend to ordinary citizens. Those who advance such an argument either have not read the Founders themselves who wrote the 2d Amendment, or hope you do not—or both.

The concern has always been, from the time of the creation of America until today, that a centralized federal government would evolve into a dictatorship or totalitarian state. The framers, with one voice, stated that the only counter measure to such gravitational pull over time was the populace itself. Alexander Hamilton, for example, in The Federalist Papers, asserted that liberty would always be ensured as long as the people were allowed to be “properly armed and equipped.”

James Madison, who authored the 2d Amendment, wrote that under the Constitution “the ultimate authority …resides in the people alone [due to the] advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Joseph Story, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (8112-1845), a foremost Constitutional authority, wrote:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, noted that

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence….From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.

Sam Adams, introduced in the Massachusetts convention the call to ratify the Constitution. In it he said that the “Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own guns.”

Sir William Blackstone (1725-80), though not a founder of this nation, was one of the top four quoted authorities on Common Law. Lawyers in America until the time of Abraham Lincoln normally carried Blackstone with them. Of the right to keep and bear arms, Blackstone said,

“Of the absolute rights of individuals: the fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject … is that of having arms for their defense …”

He explained that the basis for this right is the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression” (Alan Gottlieb, The Rights of Gun Owners, 1983, p. 6). It is as if Blackstone was mirroring current day America and the push of Democratic and Socialist lawmakers to open our borders to the entire third world, turning our streets into combat zones in some cases.

State Militia

Still, some cling to the wording of the 2d Amendment which states a “well-regulated militia” is necessary for the security of a free people to insist that this right to keep and bear arms be reserved for a specialized unit which one must join. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans do not realize that they themselves belong to the state militia where they reside. Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code defines the militia of each state as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 694).

The United States Congress has weighed in on this topic as well. In 1982 a Senate subcommittee on the Constitution carefully documented the 2d Amendment understanding in a public report. After lengthy pages of history, it noted that in various states after the War for Independence many proposals called it a general duty for all citizens to be armed. Richard Henry Lee, for instance, observed that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …”

George Mason of Virginia, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted to “disarm the people—that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” Patrick Henry said that the “great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.”

St. George Tucker, one of the earliest commentators on the Constitution and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, published in 1803 his annotations. He followed Blackstone’s citations (noted above) and pointed out regarding the 2d Amendment that it is “without any qualification.” So also, William Rawle’s “View of the Constitution” published in 1825. He emphasized that,

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

The 1982 Congress summarized some of the above material. First, subsequent legislation in the Second Congress “supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States.”

They went on to add that these persons “were obligated by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.” “There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress … spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard.” (Skousen, p. 699).

Second, the prohibition is strict and broad against the federal government or its officers from being able to address the issue of firearms or weaponry in the hands of its citizens. The reason is clear. As Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution put it this way: the right to keep and bear arms is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic.” This is a natural deterrent to tyranny.

So, whether it is Elizabeth Warren, who wants to have the federal government involve themselves in background checks, or Kamala Harris, who has dictatorship-style plans to move unilaterally on guns if elected president, or Joe Biden, who plans to implement bans on “assault weapons” at the federal level, or Bernie Sanders, who promises some type of executive action on firearms—all of these are theorizing in unconstitutional territory. If the federal government can step into this arena—no matter how small a role—history shows that this foot-in-the-door will expand to larger roles as Constitutionally illiterate people pouring out of the colleges demand more federal control. Voters, beware.

 

« Older Entries